Analysing the Statement on Household Garbage

The statement asks whether people who throw household garbages on the road should be encouraged. This is a question about whether a certain behaviour, specifically throwing household garbages on the road, is acceptable or desirable and should be promoted.

Arguments are presented to support or oppose this idea. We need to evaluate the strength of these arguments based on whether they provide a valid and significant reason related to the statement.

Evaluating Argument 1: Laziness as Justification

Argument 1 states: "Yes, people are simply too lazy to bring their trash to official dumping sites."

• This argument suggests encouraging the behaviour (throwing garbage on the road) based on the premise of people's laziness.
• A strong argument should be relevant, important, and directly support or oppose the core issue in the statement.
• Simply stating that people are lazy does not provide a valid justification for encouraging a potentially harmful or undesirable action like throwing household garbages on the road.
• Encouraging such behaviour based on laziness would likely lead to negative consequences like pollution, health hazards, and environmental damage.
• Therefore, the reason provided (laziness) is not a strong or acceptable basis for encouraging the action described in the statement.

Argument 1 is a weak argument because it uses laziness as a justification for encouraging a harmful behaviour.

Evaluating Argument 2: Environmental Impact Concern

Argument 2 states: "No, it can have serious impacts on wildlife and habitat."

• This argument opposes encouraging the behaviour (throwing garbage on the road) by highlighting its potential negative consequences.
• It points out the "serious impacts on wildlife and habitat".
• Throwing household garbages on the road is a form of littering and pollution. Littering is widely known to harm the environment, including wildlife (ingestion of waste, entanglement) and their habitats (contamination of soil and water).
• Environmental impact, especially serious impacts on wildlife and habitat, is a significant and valid reason to discourage a behaviour like throwing garbage on the road.
• This argument provides a strong, relevant, and important reason against encouraging the action mentioned in the statement.

Argument 2 is a strong argument because it highlights a significant negative environmental consequence of throwing household garbages on the road, providing a valid reason to oppose encouraging this behaviour.

Conclusion on Argument Strength

Based on the analysis:

• Argument 1 is weak because it justifies encouraging a negative behaviour based on laziness, which is not a valid reason.
• Argument 2 is strong because it provides a significant environmental reason to discourage the negative behaviour (throwing household garbages on the road).

Therefore, only Argument 2 is strong.

Identifying the Correct Option

We determined that only Argument 2 is a strong argument. Looking at the options provided:

• (A) If only argument 1 is strong
• (B) If only argument 2 is strong
• (C) If either 1 or 2 is strong
• (D) If neither 1 nor 2 is strong
• (E) If both 1 and 2 are strong

The analysis aligns with option (B), which states that only argument 2 is strong.

Revision Table: Understanding Strong vs. Weak Arguments

Additional Information: Environmental Impact of Throwing Garbage

Throwing household garbages on the road or in public spaces is a form of littering and illegal dumping. This has numerous negative environmental, health, and aesthetic consequences:

• Harm to Wildlife: Animals can ingest plastic, glass, or other waste, leading to injury or death. They can also get tangled in discarded materials.
• Habitat Degradation: Litter pollutes soil and water, making habitats unsuitable for many species.
• Pollution: Waste can leach harmful chemicals into the ground and water systems. Plastic waste persists for hundreds of years.
• Health Hazards: Accumulating garbage attracts pests and can spread diseases, posing risks to both humans and animals.
• Aesthetic Impact: Litter makes areas look unsightly and can reduce tourism and property values.

These serious consequences underscore why Argument 2 is strong and why practices like throwing household garbages on the road should be discouraged, not encouraged.